alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



SUBSIDIARIES OF
GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
(a Delaware corporation)
 Jurisdiction of
    
    Names Under WhichSubsidiary
    
    Incorporation
    
    Company Does BusinessGiant Industries Arizona, Inc.
    
    Arizona
    
    Giant Refining CompanyCiniza Pipe Line CompanyGiant TransportationGiant Service StationsTransWest Tank Lines-    Giant Four Corners, Inc.*
    
    Arizona-Navajo Convenient Stores Co., LLC**
    
    New Mexico-    Giant Mid-Continent, Inc.*
    
    Arizona-    Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*
    
    Arizona
    
    Phoenix Fuel CompanyMesa Fuel CompanyTucson Fuel CompanyFirebird Fuel CompanyPFC Lubricants Company-    Ciniza Production Company*
    
    New Mexico-    Giant Stop-N-Go of New Mexico, Inc.*
    
    New Mexico-    San Juan Refining Company*
    
    New Mexico-    Giant Pipeline Company*
    
    New Mexico-    Giant Yorktown, Inc.*
    
    Delaware-    Giant Yorktown Holding Company*
    
    Delaware-
   Dial Oil Co.*
    
    New Mexico
 
 *
    
    A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.**
    
    Giant Four Corners, Inc. has a 66 2/3% interest in this entity.
# C_2021217EN.01000501.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v Commissioner for Environmental Information

(Case C-470/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Right of access to environmental information held by public authorities - Article 2, point 2 - Notion of ‘public authority’ - Bodies or institutions when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity - Information in the file of closed court proceedings)

(2021/C 217/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd

Defendant: Commissioner for Environmental Information

Intervening party: Courts Service of Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2, point 2, of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not govern access to environmental information contained in court files, where neither the courts nor the bodies or institutions under their control, which thus have close links with those courts, constitute ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore do not fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
SCWC-17-0000508
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP,

also known as KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS, Respondent/Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,

vs. RONALD G.S. AU, Petitioner/Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-17-0000508; CIV. NO. 13-1-0420-02)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on December 1, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 10, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000508 10-JAN-2018 10:40 AM
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-181615) and Amendment No. 441 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.














/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          SENATE BILL REFERRED

  A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

       S. 710. An act to amend the solid Waste Disposal Act to 
     direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to establish a hazardous waste electronic manifest 
     system, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

                          ____________________
```
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted November 21, 2018*

Decided November 26, 2018 

Before 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2789 

DURWYN TALLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MARY MILLER, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 2:14-cv-2107 

Harold A. Baker, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Durwyn Talley, an Illinois inmate, appeals the district court’s denial of his fourth 

and fifth postjudgment motions challenging the entry of summary judgment on his 

claims of medical deliberate indifference and retaliation. We affirm. 

This litigation has been protracted. After the district judge entered summary 

judgment, Talley did not appeal. He instead filed a motion to amend judgment under 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 17-2789 Page 2 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) that the judge denied. Talley then filed successive 

motions for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that the 

judge also denied. 

Talley followed with his fourth postjudgment motion, also under Rule 60(b), 

asserting that the judge refused to consider newly discovered evidence. The judge 

denied this motion on grounds that Talley failed to present any new arguments or 

evidence. 

Talley then submitted his fifth postjudgment motion, also based on Rule 60(b), 

asking the judge to reconsider his denial of Talley’s prior Rule 60(b) motion and 

expressing a desire to appeal. The judge denied this motion, though he agreed to 

construe the submission as a notice of appeal. 

 On appeal Talley generally challenges the district court’s rulings, but in a prior 

order we limited this appeal to a review of the denial of Talley’s fourth and fifth 

postjudgment motions. The judge properly exercised his discretion by denying the 

fourth motion because Talley asked the judge to reconsider evidence that he already 

had considered, or Talley presented evidence that was available before the judge 

entered summary judgment. See Hicks v. Midwest Transit, Inc., 531 F.3d 467, 474 (7th Cir. 

2008). And as far as Talley challenges the denial of his fifth motion on the basis that the 

summary judgment violates clearly established law, he may not use Rule 60(b) to make 

arguments that could have been raised in a timely appeal. See Mendez v. Republican Bank, 

725 F.3d 651, 660 (7th Cir. 2013). 

We have considered Talley’s other arguments, and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: March 8, 2011
/s/ TODD E. WILLETodd E. WilleChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: March 8, 2011
/s/ TODD E. WILLETodd E. WilleChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 33465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13147]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending May 17, 2013. The following 
Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and 
Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly 
Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations 
(See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0104.
    Date Filed: May 14, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: June 4, 2013.
    Description: Application of Marco Aviation, Inc. requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in scheduled 
interstate carriage of passengers, freight and mail.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0105 and DOT-OST-2013-0106.
    Date Filed: May 14, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: June 4, 2013.
    Description: Application of Western Global Airlines, L.L.C. 
requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
authorizing it to conduct foreign charter air transportation of 
property and mail with large aircraft.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-13147 Filed 6-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:
March 30, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
of the Board of Directors and Director
NO. 07-06-0251-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 21, 2006

______________________________ THE CITY OF LEVELLAND, Appellant

V. BILL AND NANCY CARR, Appellees

_________________________________ FROM THE 286 th DISTRIC T COURT O F HOCKLEY CO UNTY; NO. 05-09-20167; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESI DING

_______________________________ ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. The City of Levelland moves to dismiss i ts interloc utory appeal

. Wi thout passing
on the merits of the case, we grant the mot ion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appell ate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at app ellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandatewill issue forthw ith.
Per Curiam
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and
appoint Marty E. Adams, Chairman, President and C.E.O., and/or Kevin T.
Thompson, Executive Vice President and C.F.O., as our agents, as attorneys-in-
fact, with full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of
subscribing our names to the Form 10-K thereof to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and for the purpose of making any changes or amendments
necessary or desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto,
with the same powers and to the same effect as we may do if personally present:

Signed in counterpart and dated this 27th day of March, 2002.

/s/ George N. Chandler II             /s/ Robert C. Duvall
George N. Chandler II                 Robert C. Duvall

/s/ D. James Hilliker                 /s/ Richard R. Hollington, Jr.
D. James Hilliker                     Richard R. Hollington, Jr.

/s/ Fred H. Johnson, III              /s/ Jonathan A. Levy
Fred H. Johnson, III                  Jonathan A. Levy

/s/ James C. McBane                   /s/ Gerard P. Mastroianni
James C. McBane                       Gerard P. Mastroianni

/s/ Thomas J. O'Shane                 /s/ Edward J. Reiter
Thomas J. O'Shane                     Edward J. Reiter

/s/ Gregory L. Ridler                 /s/ Emerson J. Ross, Jr.
Gregory L. Ridler                     Emerson J. Ross, Jr.

/s/ C. Gregory Spangler               /s/ Robert E. Spitler
C. Gregory Spangler                   Robert E. Spitler

/s/ Joseph N. Tosh, II
Joseph N. Tosh, II
##### 



(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Paula J. Meiler

Paula J. MeilerSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 
 *
  
  This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
otherwise stated in such filing. 
 27.
# C_2021490EN.01000701.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL

(Case C-882/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation - Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Concept of ‘economic unit’)

(2021/C 490/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sumal SL

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement;

| 2. | Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national law which provides for the possibility of imputing liability for one company’s conduct to another company only in circumstances where the second company controls the first company. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national law which provides for the possibility of imputing liability for one company’s conduct to another company only in circumstances where the second company controls the first company.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
#### Hendricks, Appellant, *v.*Smith, Aud., et al., Appellees.*

(No. 32012

Decided March 29, 1950.)

*Mr. George S. Hawke,*for appellant.

*Mr. Jackson Bosch,*prosecuting attorney, for appellees.

*

Reporter’s Note: For other cases involving land leased by Miami University, see *Baker*v. *Du*Bois, *Treas.,*130 Ohio St., 339, 199 N. E., 181; *Hughes*v. *County Board of Revision,*143 Ohio St., 559, 56 N. E. (2d), 63, and additional cases cited therein.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Turner, JJ., concur.
nvcr-ex101_28.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

 

December 23, 2016

 

Re:Amendment to Employment Agreement dated August 24, 2011

 

Dear Mr. Leung:

 

This letter (“Amendment”) is to confirm our understanding concerning an amendment to be made with respect to the Employment Agreement dated as of the 24th day of August 2011 (the “Agreement”), between NovoCure USA Inc. (“Company”) and Gabriel Leung (“Employee”).  All terms not otherwise defined herein are used as defined in the Agreement.

 

The purpose of this Amendment is to modify the terms of the Agreement.

 

The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 


	
 
	
1.
	
The parties mutually agree that the Agreement shall terminate effective December 31, 2016.  For clarity and notwithstanding the prior sentence, Mr. Leung shall continue to serve as a director of the Company’s affiliate, NovoCure Limited.




 


	
 
	
2.
	
Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.




 

If the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding as to these matters, please indicate your agreement in the space provided below, and return one fully-executed original to me.

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/ Wilco Groenhuysen

 

Wilco Groenhuysen

Chief Financial Officer

 

Acknowledged and agreed to by:

 

 

By: /s/ Gabriel Leung

       Gabriel Leung

       Date:  December 22, 2016

 

 

1